Demonstrations and violence spreading in Iran following the death of a young woman, Mahsa Amini, in police custody after being arrested for not wearing a headscarf. Iran has been to this point before and the Revolutionary Guard has crushed the rebellion. The protestors seem very determined this time with thousands denouncing the regime and women openly defying the law and removing their headscarves. Iran is a country of young people, ruled by old men and their thugs. A free Iran, rejecting both the rule of the Ayatollahs and the Shahs would be a great thing.
The idea that a woman can be beaten to death by a group of blokes calling themselves the "morality police" for not having her hat on straight is one of the most revolting things I have ever heard. But don't forget, Islam is all about peace, love and understanding
I agree with you, it’s utterly disgusting, but I don’t think you need to call out Islam in this way. Sure religious fundamentalism is vile, Islamic Fundamentalism is a curse, but it’s a twisted interpretation of religion to preserve the power of a few. In the Balkan Wars, Christians committed many mass atrocities against Muslims. Other Christians don’t have to carry that burden because violence isn’t a necessity of Christianity and it’s not a necessity of Islam.
Sorry, I thought it was a legal requirement to include that sort of caveat when discussing the latest act of barbarity in the name of Islam
I can’t begin to imagine how difficult it must be to be a moderate, liberal or atheistic person in a country like Iran. **** all organised religion.
No. But the problem becomes more solvable when those associated with a religion object with conviction to the immoral manipulation of people within it. Like Catholic support for the IRA that condemned the deaths, but baulked at direct criticism of ‘their own’. The peace process had begun, but the reality check that 911 gave the US, bringing the true effects of terrorism home to those who supported the IRA, made such activity compatible with future US policy and a new moral outlook. This is why we need to reject identitarian philosophies that lump whole groups together with each other, when in reality they have little in common. Like young Iranian Muslims and old Iranian Islamists. Most people don’t even know how wide the chasm is between them, but they are lumped in together. In the UK we do the same, even more now since BLM, CRT and the madness of left wing identitarian extremism. I have had to point out the difference between an Islamist and a Muslim to many on here, and that misunderstanding, in general, remains a huge barrier to being able to properly contemplate the problem. If we attack people as a group, they will naturally defend themselves as a group. But if we say they are individuals, and should be treated as such, we just get accused of being racists set on dividing communities. If we just saw each other as human beings, rather than racial and ethnic groups, this world would be a much better place for everyone.
How trite that this be included in what initially appeared to be an interesting thread. In the US, the majority of people support some restriction on abortion, specifically, I believe, a fifteen week limit with health and special circumstance allowancs. Bill Maher recently expressed his surprise that the majority of pro life protesters are women. So it seems the opinion being made by dear old George, who I like very much for his work on TV, is not shared by all women, indeed, possibly not even the majority. In stead, it seems, he would rather celebrate the cynical use of women, resulting in the complete removal of any rights of an unborn child, for political gain. But unborn children everywhere are unable to stand up, or be heard. Especially when they have been removed prematurely from the womb. Would you accept that they are being oppressed by women? Or do they just not matter?
Socialism is a religion. Nazism is a religion. Communism is a religion. Different to Judaism or Hinduism, but still, they are archaic religions. Religious and political extremism is only separated because modernists wish to distance themselves from mainstream, but it is only a matter of time until the beatification of Marx; and that is only if you don't consider it has already happened. He's certainly received enough millions in human offerings.
It would be interesting to see you two debate your mutually exclusive positions. Sorry Moose. I know its embarrassing, but I am leaning most heavily towards your argument.
You could add Free Market Capitalism to that list, I'd suggest. After reading through this thread, I'd venture the following comments: There is one 'race' & that is the 'human race'; all the divisions are really arbitrary and normally impermanent. 'Ethnicity' is now discussed in anthropological studies as being multi-layered, mutable and based upon crucial interactions between an individual and their milieu. Many of the unpalatable extreme anti-female aspects of Islam seem to be rooted in pre-Islam societal norms within certain groups who subsequently adopted Islam; the fact that interpretations of Islam can be formulated to mirror and support those pre-existing attitudes is a separate issue. It's not only Islam that has been used to underpin less than pleasant attitudes.
Absolutely. But then, religion has always been used to control the population. Dare I say it, but I don’t see it a a race or sex issue, but a class issue. The Rich and powerful can do as they please, and though men are not controlled in the same way women are, they are the ones who lay down their lives to fight wars or to do the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. I dare say that in 1914, someone who valued their own life would probably have rather been a woman than a man. Yet women didn’t even have the vote at that time. I seem to remember that many women wore headscarves as an act of modesty when I was young. I believe that a man without a hat was considered a peculiarity up until the mid 20th Century. Different reasons, but still an element of cultural peer pressure. But good friends of mine who do cover their heads maintain that they do it by choice because it is modest to do so. And I value modesty, as much as I like clothing that shows off a woman’s figure. I can consider each person based on how they present themselves. In Islam, in the Koran, there are also passages that do place women before men, particularly regarding money in the household. But I guess that what I am saying is that we are all oppressed and manipulated by power, based on our class. Men are manipulated in a different way to women, but they are still oppressed, but in a way that is completely absorbed into society, to the point of it being the norm. Like bearing the brunt in war time, performing the most dangerous or dirtiest jobs, paying for women’s meals (even feminists agree this is something they are reluctant to let go of), and generally being expected to be the protector of the family. Both society and women folk expect these things of them. And where women are raped or beaten, men are beaten or killed, and in far greater numbers. That is not excusing how women are treated. It is just trying to recognise that it is class and not sex or race that is the biggest issue, imho.
Opinion piece on the uprising. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-24/iran-protests-mahsa-amini-hijab-morality-police
I don't see this at all. True, people will make a religion of money and self enrichment, but the misuse of the free market is despotism and not capitalism. Any deviation from the free market cannot, by definition, be considered to be the functioning of a free market. Even communist Russia employed a free market; I think it was an experiment under Lenin. So I think it is fair to suggest that free market capitalism in itself is a tool, rather the ideology. Human greed, probably best demonstrated by globalism in this moment, does not represent capitalism, but, instead, is just another form of extremism that leads to elitism, oppression and exploitation. Listen to the WEF. You will not own anything, but you will be happy. Well, someone is going to own or control everything, and I would assume that they think they will also be happy, if not happier. It's just the same old 'more equal than others' story, over again. Captalism requires people to have money in their pockets, or it doesn't work. And like all extremist societies, a society ruled by greed would require oppression of a substantial amount of the populace. A fair day's work for a fair day's pay is, in my opinion, as important to healthy capitalism as it is the people that live within it. Extreme-greed, using the front of a free market (which has been capitalisms greatest enemy) is its own religion. Imho, capitalism is not a religion. It is simply a way to trade goods and services fairly, that can facilitate the exchange and sharing of essential requirements in a mutually beneficial manner. Religion, like social ideologies, requires the definition and assertion of power over individuals. Capitalism, untainted, requires that two parties be fair with each other in the exchange of goods and services. When one party ceases to be fair, it is no longer capitalism. I am not saying I am right. Just stating an opinion.
A lot of your definition of 'pure capitalism' is not that far from a definition of 'pure socialism'. You call the misuse of the free market 'despotism' but seem to have decided that 'socialism' and 'communism' are inherently despotic, when in fact the case could just as easily be made that it is only the *misuse* of those ideologies that have led to despotism. I specified 'free market capitalism' as a quasi-religion as its most devoted proponents exhibit an almost messianic belief that 'the free market is always right and *will* solve all ills'. Even when all evidence points to a different conclusion. A more fanatically religious standpoint I struggle to envisage.
Again, I disagree strongly. I think pure socialism is a neat idea provided it is pure. Problem is, as soon as you have more than two people in a socialist society it starts to fall apart, and the more people, the more problems is presents. Socialsim, as with all religions, defines the way of life that people should lead if they are to be good people. Free market capitalism is a transaction between two parties, which has no requirement upon a person other than to trade fairly. A communist, Christian, Muslim, etc., can spend their entire life using a free market to trade, and to allow trade to pretty much govern itself (though in reality some regulation is usually necessary to prevent despotism) without their religion being impinged upon in the slightest. I respect your opinion, but I really cannot see how a means of trading to generate wealth can be described as a religion, without, as I said, extremism perverting it into something it is not intended to be. People who worship money are not capitalists, from my point of view. They are just greedy b'stards with a power complex, like extremists of all religions. I guess I am trying to say that what you consider to be a capitalist begins where I stop considering them to be capitalists.
